Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 24, 2012 12:30pm-1:00pm PST

12:30 pm
received was getting voted on turned out to be something different. i do want to express what my preference is what ink the resolution supporting the d.d.a. should look like. that's why i'm moving forward with these motions. the last one i'd like to do is a motion, clause that would add language that the d.d.a. and work force plan shall specifically require that all construction contracts should be subject to the hiring and construction. requirements will be set as the date of the d.d.a. is signed this is to make sure that we have the closest language possible to what our local higher ordinance construction is and i think it prevents a real harm any to what we're --
12:31 pm
harmony to what we're trying to achieve with america's cup with the rest of the policy. president: supervisor chiu? chiu i -- supervisor chiu: i support what supervisor avalos and the rest of us are trying to do. i do hope that regardless of what happens to this amendment over the next few days, i would like to get updates from city staff to understand exactly the plans on this issue. it's important for many of us, a vast majority of this board who have supported this to see these provisions really addressed in both the d.d.a. and under underlying documents. i would make that request of city staff and look forward to the conversation over the next few days. supervisor avalos: i do appreciate the efforts that have been made by the authority and the work force development in crafting this work force
12:32 pm
development and this small business inclusion policy. i think it's a strong step in the right direction. i think when it comes to how we are looking at some of the penalties, where liberty dated damages is wheric there needs to be greater harmony. i'm willing to look at ways of having something that's programs not quite as strong as the exact liquidated damages of the local ordinance but to the extent that we're applying liquidated damages as they're described but not necessarily the exact amounts would be the way to go and this resolution, this amendment would accomplish that type of flexibility. supervisor chu: -- president miguel:. -- president chu: thank you very much. sounds like we differ primarily in the area of liquidated
12:33 pm
damages. could someone speak to that? >> hi, i think that's right, supervisor chu. i think this language as a potential place holder for what we work on the actual work force plan what amendments could actually look like i think is fine. i think as a replacement for the work force plan. i don't think it achieves the goals that we've negotiated over the past year but i think is a path to get us to what we're trying to achieve i think that's fine. supervisor chu: does this require that it has to be word for word? does it give us this flexibility to review that? supervisor avalos: it would have that flexibility.
12:34 pm
supervisor chu: ok, and we can confirm that to the city attorney? >> i'm not entirely positive i'm understanding what the department is indicating about the place holder language. so you want to change the resolution to include the language that supervisor avalos has articulated? supervisor chu: i believe the motion that he's made is that the d.d.a. and work force plan shall specifically determine that all plans shall be subject to construction. as of the date that the d.d.a. is signed. it sounds like what we've agreed upon is not exactly the same as the san francisco local hiring policy in that it differs in the penalty and the areas of liquidated damage. the intent that i believe supervisor avalos had mentioned that we'd like to see it as close to our hiring policy as
12:35 pm
possible. however, we are open to looking at that area. i want to ensure that the language proposed allows that that fecksability is not word for word the san francisco local hiring policy. mike, did you want to speak to this? >> so this reference is all permanent and temporary construction contracts? temporary contracts i don't believe are covered by our hiring ordinance so i don't believe that a larger part of that paradigm. >> if you want to amend this into the resolution now but make changes to the d.d.a., or changes are negotiated to the d.d.a. it, if they are not exactly squint this provision you could always amend it out of the resolution, if necessary.
12:36 pm
otherwise, i would suggest making, if you wanted to keep this in the resolution, all the way through to your vote, regardless of what gets negotiated in the d.d.a. then i would suggest maybe making this a bit brooder. >> uh, ok. >> supervisor avalos can i ask perhaps we can work on it and there are two other motions i'd like to entertain in terms of amendment? supervisor avalos: we can come back to it. that's fine. supervisor chu: ok. and if i can ask the other folks to look at that language with supervisor avalos. supervisor kim, would you like to speak to 337 supervisor kim: yes, i would like to remove references to lot 337 and the attention to the waterfront in the financing district. supervisor chu: thank you.
12:37 pm
i believe that is a motion to remove item number five to remove any references of seawall lot 337. we've had that motion. is there any conversation to that? do we need to roll call or take that without objection? we can take that without objection. that has been removed. on the recommended action, i believe it's item number four, that would require an amend -- amendment to the resolution on item number four. it would be to amend the resolution to add the following resolve clause -- further detective the executive director to provide a progress report to the city controller and the budget to the board of supervisors prior to the commencement of any work which include the real state transaction and the seismic upgrade. i think this was an item that was fairly nontrombls, so
12:38 pm
colleagues, can we entertain that motion? any discussion? seeing none, do we need to roll call on that? we'll do that without objection. supervisor chiu, are you speaking to this motion? we'll do that without objection. ok, supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: i wanted to ask city staff where we were with language with regards to the -- issues. if i could ask either mike martin or jennifer matz, if you could give us a status update. supervisor chu: if we could get a better understanding of the commitments of the organizing commitment to the city in terms of the june 30, 2012 deadline. >> so to take the first set of questions -- supervisor chu, were you asking about the surety bond?
12:39 pm
so, take a step back. part of the idea was to protect the authority from the city's -- >> i'm sorry, the event authority or the city? >> the event authority. >> ok, but it's the city that would be out of pocket for $32 million, right? >> no, the bond protects the authority from the city's performance and the committee he is performance of its obligation. that protects the general fund. >> which protects the city. that's what my concern is. >> my apologies. the city's performance is a bit of a moving target because of the amendments you see today. i think once we've got then part of the conversation together we've been talking about different approaches to combining insurance products with other pieces of security that would get to the level of security the event authority needs. so i think we need time based then discussion to go back and try to help our partners come to agreement on that and we'd
12:40 pm
hope to have that answer to you by the time the board votes on this resolution. >> it's important to me that this gets resolved by that date and if it doesn't, i'd like to see a language that requires the city for this bond or some financial instrument to be in place. even many if not exactly by that tuesday but please keep us informed on the on -- on that. >> absolutely. we know that has to come together. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor chiu. supervisor kim, did you have a follow-up response? supervisor kim: i would like to know what the committee is willing to commit to. >> thank you. we are able to add two amendments to the m.o.u. one would be to the end of section 1.2 b, saying the acoc
12:41 pm
shall secure 1 million receipts by june 30 of 2012. trying to be as clear as possible. supervisor chu: can you clear what that means? in receipts means? >> into our bank account. supervisor chu: in cash on hand? and we'll be reimbursed for actual cost that is you'll have 12 million dollars in cash in your bank account. >> we do secure that supervisor chu: thank you. i really appreciate your ability to step up and make that commitment. it gives me a lot more comfort in terms of the risks that we're putting to the general fund and i appreciate the efforts that you'll be taking on your behalf to make that happen for the city so if you for that work. >> you're welcome. the second point, section 1 .7, where we would create that, that mirrors the comments around the commitment on the bond. the acoc will continue to work with the city on putting the
12:42 pm
necessary instruments in place to fulfill the section of the host agreement and that come flies with our facility obligations. that will cover the city's and committee's agreements in the host agreement and further de fined in the implementation plans. >> from my perspective, that language does not feel particularly as if we are completing a commitment. it feels looser than the other language that we've been focused on. i would just give that you feedback. >> we can work on the language. the commitment is the same as what mike martin reflected. we need to have something in place by tuesday and it's a top priority for us. at this moment in time i don't think we have the exact instrument but we're committed to getting there by tuesday. >> i look forward to the updates. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor campos?
12:43 pm
supervisor campos: thank you. if i may ask ms. mcclelland to come back. i was wondering if you could reference that section in the first amendment of the m.o.u. >> i'm looking at section 1.2 b and adding the last sentence. i think right above it it talks about we're endeavoring to raise 32 million. it says we'll receive 12 million in' seats by june 30 of 2012. supervisor campos: you're not making the same commitment to any of the remainder of that 32 million? >> our ability to commit beyond best efforts is very challenging. all we can do is go out and endeavor to raise $32 million. given what we've raced to date, we feel confident that we can commit to having those funds in place by june 30.
12:44 pm
if i had a crystal ball or had assets that could create those commitments, we could do that but i don't want to make false expectations on what we know is achievable. supervisor campos: i appreciate that but i think to the extent to the point that was made on the impact of the general fund, it clearly does but it's only a partial resolution because you're only talking about 12 million out of 32. the fact is that you still don't have that level of assurance with respect to 20 million and that remains an open question and i think that, while i appreciate the movement, i appreciate the progress, there is a different level of assurance here with respect to most of the money that's at issue. >> ok. thank you. >> if i may to that point, the
12:45 pm
whole m.i.u. is a step forward as far as the overall commitment because it comes with a schedule, with targets that they have to meet, that they're going to put forward and say this is what we're doing. in a way, the whole document is explicitly saying this 32 million is what we're doing and this is how we're doing it. i think we can work on the 1 million provision but i do want to say that this m.o.u. to me is a great step forward in understanding how that fundraising relationship is going to work. supervisor campos: i think it is a step forward but i also want to be clear that to the extent that the d.d.a. is approved as is right now that the city is also waiving its ability to terminate any kind of commitments if the fundraising goals are not being melt. the city is expressly waiving
12:46 pm
its rights under that. so, in some respects, yes, there is an added protection but there is a waiver of right that's happening. so to the extent that you don't have the same level of assurance with respect to the entire $32 million, i think we need to be clear about that thank you. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor campos. so colleagues, let's return to supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: i'm actually willing to withdraw this motion and knowing that i'll have discussions with -- and the event authority on making sure we have some conformity with what our available work force will be for the event and local hire ordinance. i will withdraw this knowing in the next few days we'll work out some kind of agreement, hopefully.
12:47 pm
supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor avalos, and i want to request that the event authority and our oewd work as hard as possible to work on our work force area. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. this was a point that i think that there is some level of agreement around earlier. there is agreement with both parties on 1% sale -- i'm sorry, 1% proceeds from the third sale and i would like to dedicate that to affordable housing on port property. if there is no opposition i would like to move forward with that motion. supervisor chu: so supervisor kim, i believe that it would be something that would be included in the underlaying d.d.a.? so a question to the port with regards to whether it's possible to dedicate. it sounded like brad answered that it is possible as long as there's a nexus of affordable
12:48 pm
housing that is on port property, correct? >> subject to negotiating that agreement with state hands commission. so we can't say to you now whether it would just be an agreement with state land or whether it would require an act of the legislature. supervisor chu: could you repeat that again? subject to -- >> subject to an agreement with the california state lands commission. supervisor chu: ok. and then terms of technically how we would do this. it is currently i think part of the d.d.a., not necessarily a resolution. and so can we -- i guess we don't need to take a motion but is there a commitment to make that? >> we can bring that change of the d.d.a. to the committee as a whole. and if you'd like as well to amend the resolution to urge important staff to go get the
12:49 pm
agreement with state lands commission to dedicate the 1% to affordable housing on port property. that could be a way that you could put it in the resolution right now. supervisor chu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: and thank you for that clarification. that is correct. as long as we have a commitment that language will be inserted into the d.d.a. i am comfortable with moving forward on that. supervisor chu: ok, colleagues. thank you very much for all of the comments. i know it was a fairly painful process to go through all of the different amendments necessary. i think we've taken all the amendments and we've clarified some direction for areas we want to make sure it comes back and the d.d.a. is reflective of it. in terms of the items that were provided in the charts, the budgets and finance committee responses, if these are the items that i think mike went into detail on. we didn't talk about the ones
12:50 pm
about how the d.d.a. will reflect new language. that's not necessarily a motion we need to take. i think the direction from the committee is that we will accept those items and hope they are reflected in the d.d.a. supervisor kim talked about the component of the 1% of sales being dedicated to affordable housing so as long as that we are in agreement with the california state lands and so that language, i believe, we're hoping that will be included. it sounds like we are also wanting the event authority and our statue to work as much as possible to get language that mirrors our local work force hiring components so that was something that supervisor avalos had spoken about and finally, i think with regards to m.o.u., that's an open item that we hope that there's going to be some comments from committee members if there are areas or suggestions on how to strengthen that language and the commitment i'm hearing is
12:51 pm
to get that m.o.u. to us before, in advance of the tuesday meeting so that we can review that, right? ok, i see heads nodding. so colleagues, the items are before us as amended. do we have a motion on these items? supervisor chiu? supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. ok. so i think that we have made some headway at this meeting. i am happy to see some of the amendments that have been put in i do just want to say a couple of things. i was more hopeful that we would have local hire amendments ready at this committee meeting but i will defer on supervisor avalos on that in working through in the next couple of days to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to ensure that we have local hiring in this d.d.a. that is something that can only be done in this d.d.a. to ensure that that happens.
12:52 pm
there are a number of concerns that i have in this d.d.a., but i realize that there are a couple more steps i can take. one was the upper water basin. i will continue to be active on this issue in ensuring that we are able to protect our views for members of the public able to use this park once that is depleted. there is another level of process that's going to go into effect before that. i'm willing to do that without removing it directly on the d.d.a. the second issue that will be very important to me in my vote on tuesday is the 1% of condo proceeds on the second sale that goes to the poor. that is still something that's very important to me and many of my colleagues. i do appreciate that we will be
12:53 pm
able to see subsequent sales go towards the housing on port property. that is of great value to our community and our city. as our city takes a renewed effort on finding sources of funding for affordable housing, i'm happy to see there will be one of the revenue streams. so i want to see language about local hiring to ensure we are doing everything we can and i look forward to supporting supervisor avalos whose office is taking the lead on negotiating that and will certainly look at that when evaluating my vote on tuesday. i would still like to continue this discussion on 1% sale proceeds, on the second sale going to the port but i am pleased to have seen some of the developments that have taken place over the last couple of hours today and do
12:54 pm
want to appreciate everyone for their work on this. i still have some concerns about what this means for our city in the long term and there's a leap of faith that many of us are taking in moving this forward but i think that we still have a little bit more work to do but i think that there's been enough effort that i have seen to move this out of committee today. supervisor chu: i just wanted to complarify are you making a motion to send items four and five to the full board without recommendation as amended? supervisor kim: that is correct. supervisor chu: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you, supervisor chu -- which you. i actually feel that we shouldn't move forward. i prefer that we keep in committee in item, specifically the outstanding issues we've expressed. i will be voting against that. i want to be sure we keep our
12:55 pm
leverage. that's why i'll be voting against the motion to move out without recommendation. supervisor chu: supervisor camp os? supervisor campos: thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to sit in and all the folks who have come out and testified about this. i do appreciate some of the progress that has been made but i do want to agree with what supervisor avalos expresses. i think this has been a missed opportunity for this committee. when this project came before us and the e.i.r. was before the board, to the extent that there were questions about what this deal looked like, the response at the time was don't worry, you'll be able to make changes when the d.d.a. comes before the board of supervisors. when this item came before this committee, the guidance that was given to us and what was reiterated was you cannot make changes to the d.d.a. because
12:56 pm
that's an agreement and so you as a board of supervisors cannot make shows changes. and the only document that we as a board have an authority to change is the resolution and this committee today chose not to make those changes and i think that's unfortunate. i do hope that in the end the outcome will be a better outcome for the city and county of san francisco, but a number of issues remain unresolved. issues that are very important. the issue of whether or not there is an actual hard cap, not withstanding some of the discussion that we've had. there's still an open question about how much the city will have to reimburse, the port will have to reimburse the event authority. the issue of whether or not we have 1% on the second sale of condominiums. that still remains an open question. it's been left to the parties to figure out but they've had a lot of time to figure that out
12:57 pm
and that has yet to happen today and we have given out the opportunity to provide guidance as a matter of policy on that likewise on the 15% of net proceeds on subsequent assignment and subleases, we are not taking the opportunity today to provide guidance and to set limitations and conditions on the authority. on the issue of work force development, we're talking about just a number of three days before a vote that we need to figure out the language for that. i mean, i don't know how long it took to actually finalize the local hire ordinance that supervisor avalos did a tremendous job in spearheading, but this is complicated stuff. are we going to be able to have something that is totally satisfactory between now and tuesday? on some of the items that budget and legislative analysts recommended that were not
12:58 pm
addressed. what's going to happen to those items? what's going to happen on the issue of the arts community and their concerns around the involvement of local artists. i think it's a missed opportunity but i remain hopeful that maybe things will change between now and tuesday and i wait to see what developments take place and whatever we can do to be help informal this parasells -- process i know we're all committed to that thank you. supervisor chu:, supervisor, chiu? supervisor chiu: while i think we have moved in some dimensions in the right direction, we still have quite a bit of work to do. i don't want to see an rave large of paper on tuesday that we are trying to review at the last minute so i'd like to set up or at least get an update on friday where all these documents are. if i can ask city staff right now if you think between now and friday you'll be able to
12:59 pm
make enough headway. because it's very challenging when we get these documents at the last minute and have to read without enough time to get advice on what we're looking at. i'd like to make that request of city staff and i'm hoping that we can see that. let me ask if that is something we can get. i see people nodding their heads but i've been asking for paper and documents before and we always seem to get them at the last minute. supervisor chu: i have to agree. supervisor campos: so i'm hearing a yes from mr. martin? >> yes, we'd be happy to report back on all the issues we've talked about today. supervisor campos: i look -- supervisor chu: i look forward to that conversation on friday. supervisor chu: i do think supervisor chu: i do think there's been san francisco


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on